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.
Jim,
I have no confusion on the President’s role in government. The confusion here is all yours. You may have taken orders from him, but him taking orders from us normal citizens is still the norm until the junta – or until Bush Co got appointed. As it is, the CIC can order a solider to do his duty. He can’t order me to do squat. I’m HIS boss. So is every citizen who can vote.
You’re avoiding the illegal detention issue by issue trying to steer towards some wishful thinking about what the President is as defined by law. His ability to command the military is constrained by the Separation of Powers and he is subject to both the law and the Congress in discharging those duties. It has been gaming the gray areas that have caused the human and civil rights violations, in part because Congress are bunch of spineless graft weasels more interested in how much cash they can get from K St. instead of doing the job of representing the legitimate interests those citizens who put them in office. But make no mistake, your CIC reports to We the People and will until the day the US officially becomes a military dictatorship. If you think otherwise, you haven’t read the Constitution or are simply ignoring it in a quest for slavish obedience to an all powerful Imperial Executive. You may like a King because of your military proclivities, but we’re a democracy, not a monarchy or a dictatorship (yet). Wishful thinking again.
Now you should try to address the indefinite detention issue, Jim. The one I just pointed out the flaw in your reasoning for in language anyone can understand and that Bob has been equally addressing in parallel if on a different scale. You can try, but your doomed for failure. Yeah, you may be a solider. Many of us here are lawyers. That would make us the experts on law – that thing you’d disregard to wage unfettered war for the personal profit of corrupt politicians. So far, you’re not lining up many of us to your side. That’s because we know the law. You might want to consider that when evaluation of why you aren’t getting any of them as converts to your militarism.
Evasion in the light of defeat is the tactic of trolls. There is simply no legal basis or defense for detention as you seem to want it exercised. You don’t want to be considered a troll? Then don’t start acting like one again. If sorting out the wheat from the chafe makes soldiers jobs more difficult? Too bad. That doesn’t mean the Constitution gets trashed to make their jobs easier. Their job is to protect it and us, not their job security or the profits of Halliburton and Exxon. Well maybe you should address that point to the leadership that illegally took you to war against a concept instead of the well-defined group that attacked us on 9/11, namely Al-Qaeda and Saudi Arabia operating out of Afghanistan. Especially since that abuse of the military was done for the personal profit of both the Bush and Cheney family businesses over the law and justice for those who died at the hands of Al-Qaeda and Saudi Arabia.
IS,
I did not mention “just war”. Your words, not mine. Don’t put words in my mouth. No war is just and that whole subject is merely a distraction used by war mongers to justify being evil. Apparently you don’t understand the concept of Pyrrhic victory. If one stands is based on principles and the rule of law and then you abandon them because some other dipsticks act like barbarians when they attack you? That makes you a barbarian too. That’s simple (even basic) ethical calculus. Common sense.
Larry:
Why does it matter? The son is not the father. Obama actually seems to me to be more pro Palestinian than other administrations. If Rohm was like his father as you seem to imply wouldnt Obama have toned his rhetoric down a little bit at Rohm’s urging?
Conclude whatever you wish.
I have no opinion about Rahm Emmanuel’s father. Rahm Emanuel,
I like.
Patty C—-I see you “conveniently” ignored my post—as did everyone else for that matter–so Ill post it again. If you ignore it THIS time, I will conclude that its official: youre afraid of facts.
“Patty C—–any comment on Obama picking Rahm Emanuel as his Chief of Staff? Emanuel’s father, Benjamin, was a member of the terrorist militant group, Irgun, in the late 1940’s. They were responsible for slaughtering hundreds of Palestinians in villages and marketplaces. This is all documeted and FACT. Do you not see how disturbing it is to have the SON of a terrorist in our White House?? Oh by the way, Benjamin Emanuel is STILL alive and lives in Chicago.”
BIL:
“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.”
The only thing about war is a total destruction of your enemy to disable his war fighting apparatus and his ability to get up again. Your thinking is “Just War Doctrine” and it is one of the reasons we have been in Iraq and Afghanistan for so long.
Had we done to the Taliban and others what we did to Germany and Japan during WWII this war would have been over in a few months maybe a year at most. That Bush and the Neocons embraced this style of warfare is disgraceful, enemy civilians were given a higher moral status than our soldiers. The entire war was bullshit to have been fought on a “Just War” basis. Hopefully the Military Academies and the War Colleges will quit teaching this theory.
There are just wars but you must fight them as if your countries survival depends on the outcome. I for one consider the continuation of the United States and its form of government justification enough for prosecuting a war to the extent of our abilities as we did in WWII. Bush hung our service men and women out to dry.
here is an article on this subject:
http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2006-spring/just-war-theory.asp
Mike S.,
While I agree that you understand the chain of command, you had one great benefit that a soldier does not. -You had the ability to opt out.
Most people don’t understand what a serviceman or woman gives up when they join the military. To them it’s just a different job; most of the time with special training and unique tools.
The members of our Armed Forces relinquish their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. While every effort is made to maintain such, they are no longer guaranteed.
An order to charge a hill…one that will likely get you killed..is an order that you must obey…or face the possibility of imprisonment for failure to do so.
You can’t quit. You signed a binding contract. You only have the freedom granted you by your superiors. During times of war, that may be none at all.
Many things that I enjoyed before I joined the service were no longer permissable. I was no longer permitted to skydive. Even my liberty time was restricted to what was deemed an acceptable activity.
Mike S.
How I know you enjoy color. I often cite the Pottery Barn Rule, also. It was actually John Kerry who added “you fix it”.
Powell’s initial thrust was caution against going into Iraq in the first place. He knew success was iffy and likely a long haul.
Too bad nobody listened.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/arts/17iht-saf18.html
Fast-forward 25 years to another phrase involving metaphoric breakage. U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell was quoted in “Plan of Attack” as cautioning President George Bush before the war that he would “own” Iraq and all its problems, after military victory. “Privately,” wrote Bob Woodward, “Powell and Armitage called this the Pottery Barn rule: You break it, you own it.” (Richard Armitage is the deputy secretary of state.)
Bob,Esq:
You’ll get no argument from me that Bush got an inch and took a mile based on the Congressional authorization, but as you note the authorization is broadly written and of indeterminate length. Bush used that authorization– written in the haste and passion of post-9/11 Washington — to further his view of the unitary Executive. That’s clearly unconstitutional in my view. I think your issue is Bush’s conferral of power on himself to determine status of the combatants and its potential misuse to denominate anti-government American citizens as such thus denying them basic rights. SCOTUS took care of that issue.
Buddha,
I think you may be confusing the President’s many roles, and the extent to which he has the constitutional authority to exercise those roles. His authoritarian rule over the military does not extend into his role as Chief Executive of the United States Government.
The POTUS wears 6 identifiable hats. He is the Party Leader, the Chief Executive, the Chief of State, the Chief Diplomat, the Chief Legislator, and the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces.
C-Span does a pretty good job of briefly describing these roles.
Roles of the President
Commander-in-Chief: That means all of the military leaders report to and take orders from the president. You’re correct; the president performs this duty as a civilian, someone who is not in military service. However, once Congress declares war the military decisions of the president are virtually unchecked. If he says drop the bomb…(once the order is verified) it is done.
When I heard the general alarm, followed by “Man Battle Stations Missile” over the 1MC…I knew my role. I’ve contemplated such often.
What do I mean by “turn of a phrase?”
Let’s see what Mike S. has been thinking lately…
“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.
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.”
Well said, well spoken.
Buddha,
You do realize we’re making essentially the same argument; albeit you more on the micro scale and me more on the macro scale — going back to claimed source of power (the 9/11 authorization existing as possible under the U.S. Constitution).
What I find most annoying is having to remind people that a turn of a phrase is not law.
Jill,
No worries. 😀
Bob,
JAKE: We’re putting the band back together.
ALAN: Forget it. No way.
ELWOOD: We’re on a mission from God.
Buddha,
My nerves are on edge and I apologize for misreading what you meant. I know you are not my enemy and I never thought that. I hope you know the same about me.
lthuedk,
Glad you liked the link. Ol’ Popehat has a pretty good blog overall. I read it often but almost never comment there.
Buddha:
“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”
Reverend Cleophus James: DO YOU SEE THE LIGHT?
Elwood: What light?
Reverend Cleophus James: HAVE YOU SEEEEN THE LIGHT?
Jake: YES! YES! JESUS H. TAP-DANCING CHRIST… I HAVE SEEN THE LIGHT!
Jill,
I’m not trying to have your opinion for you. Have any you like. If you don’t want to consider my points or disagree, that’s fine too. No need to get defensive because I disagree. I’m not your enemy and you know this. Everyone seems a little frayed at the edges this week. But I value your opinion, Jill. Why would I want to have it for you? I’m sorry if that’s what you thought my intention was, because I assure you, it wasn’t.
Mike S.,
I am not saying anything about whether you are liable to flattery. I am saying Jim was trying to flatter you by asking that question. He claimed he didn’t even know what a neocon was, yet one week later he is presenting neocon legal arguments. That’s very strange. You should, by all means feel as you do, as will I.
Buddha,
Sometimes I truly feel you do not read what I write. I welcome all points of view on this blog, including those of neocons. I am obviously not shy about arguing my positions and I don’t expect others to hold back either. I gave my opinion and my reason for it. I am not saying it needs to be your opinion. Now, please do not tell me what my opinion needs to be. Giving your opinion and the reason for it is helpful to me.
Buddha Is laughing (9:48), I swear I hadn’t visited the “Item for Consideration..” before my 12:51 post!
That link did excite my corpus callosum-lots of traffic on that one because Popehat gives the CC a specific task that looks doable. I think there was even a rush of serotonin.
So, it’s begun.
Highly recommended reading, thanks.