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.
Mike S. said:
“If it was John McCain in the WH, we would have an egostistical, incompetent as President, backed by a totally incompetent Vice President and be on the verge of nuclear war. By the way his Vice President’s husband was a member for 8 years of an organization founded by a terrorist, the AIP, and was thus in favor of Alaska’s secession from the Union. Are you peachy with that?”
Mike, you seem to be more frightened about a terrorist connection to someone who DIDNT get elected than you are about a terrorist connection to someone who DID and that connection is IN our White House—-LITERALLY INSIDE our White House!! Now its crystal clear—-you’re a Zionist, arent you? You LOVE that Palestinians were murdered by Emanuel’s father. After all, Rahm Emanuel’s middle name IS “ISRAEL”!
I am 100% AGAINST any support of Israel. The Bible and religion are both very dangerous things and these wars going on right now in Iraq and Afghanistan are about ISRAEL—-NOT terror——PERIOD. Why are we sacrificing Americans for support of Israel??? Why?? I am so sick and tired everytime I hear someone say “the troops are fighting for our freedom”. NO. They are fighting for criminals who support Israel. Like Kissinger said in 1973—–troops are “stupid pawns used for foreign policy”. Those are his words, not mine. Our leaders dont give a rats ASS about our troops. They are dying for the imperialism of America—nothing else. There IS no “war on terror”.
Let me guess…you believe in global warming too??? Believe in the Easter bunny and Bigfoot?
It is pretty, but, alas, summers are short and ours recently has been a little wet for all the outdoor activity we have planned before winter sets in-again.
Certainly, you do remember ‘niblet’, n’est ce pas?
Patty C,
I love Maine though I haven’t been there since the 70’s. Beautiful seashore, beautiful forests and yummy lobster.
Mike S.
I really don’t care to engage with people like Larry, myself, but feel free.
I have fields of ‘niblets’ planted here that I’m enjoying so much more.
I’m on Maine shore leave.
MIKE S,
I agree w/you. These are arostocracies who favor rule of the elite.
To me those are the progressives. Those in the massess who THINK they themselves are progressive do NOT realize how the progressive elite manipulates them as pawns to maintain their rule.
GWBush was a GLOBAL PROGRESSIVE AUTHORITARIAN ELITIST. He uses a different mechanism than Obama BUT they’re both ONLY interested in doing the bidding of the GLOBAL CORPROCRACY that runs them. They just drape their agenda’s in different rhetoric.
I only find the “typical” progressive rhetoric like Obama’s particularly annoying w/all his “soapbox moralising” But I do belive Bush’s wrapping of “patriotism” around every cause just as dangerous.
I’m sure you remember that it was GHWBush who talked of a NWO in his inauguration speech. Classic progressive “key words” The Bush aristocracy is maybe the most influential w/it’s business ties to the Saud dynasty. For the last 17 years at least the world has been at the mercy of the interests of those 2 dynasties.
I don’t even know the classification of the Bush’s they’vechanged as they see fit. They were part of that “yankee elist” crowd for a long time. But now after GW, they’ve crafted themselves as “cowboys”. Whatever they are they’re elist progressives that are only interested in promoting the global interests of the few at the expense of the many.
I know, I digress.
Larry,
So you are attacked on the entirety of your inane point about the sins of the father being visited upon the son and then you reply by admitting that you dislike Rahm Emmanuel. Guess what I’m not a fan of his either, but I’ll take him over those I would surmise you support any day.
“WHY? What if it was John McCain in the White House and he selected someone for his administration who’s father was a terrorist? Youd be peachy with that?”
If it was John McCain in the WH, we would have an egostistical, incompetent as President, backed by a totally incompetent Vice President and be on the verge of nuclear war. By the way his Vice President’s husband was a member for 8 years of an organization founded by a terrorist, the AIP, and was thus in favor of Alaska’s secession from the Union. Are you peachy with that?
Oops, I mentioned more than four and that is excluding dozens of other who come to mind.
“I believe all those in the “aristocracy” are the elite progressives.”
sicilian 1,
While there is much we agree on the statement above is a sticking point. To refute it I will mention four names who are/were charter members of the aristocracy. Richard Mellon Scaife, William F. Buckley, G.H.W. Bush, The Walton Family, the Welch family of jelly fame, the Mars Family members and Grover Norquist. Google any of these to see their non-progressive credentials and their contributions to the “Ameristocracy.”
All of these are aristocrats who favor rule by the elite and none could be labeled progressive in any sense of the word. Are there progressive Aristocrats, of course, but the American Aristocracy is not controlled by them, though they do go along with maintaining their privileges.
_________________________________
{Quote:
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/07/11/holder-v-rahm-the-torture-fight/
Holder v. Rahm: The Torture Fight
Like I said–the story is pretty puffy and definitely pro-Holder. But it does reveal important details about the conflicts within the Administration over whether or not to hold anyone accountable for these crimes.
End Quote}
__________________________________
No, I liked Rahmn Emanuel for putting forth his proposal to cut off funding for Cheney’s fourth branch of government, at a time when something sorely needed to happen along with a lot of other things, thank you.
Other than that, he’s no longer elected to anything, and I’ve never voted for him. If Obama likes his friend from Illinois as Chief of Staff, he can have him. It doesn’t bother me.
“Conclude whatever you wish.
I have no opinion about Rahm Emanuel’s father. Rahm Emanuel,
I like.”
UNBELIEVABLE. And why do you like Rahm Emanuel? Hes the guy who wrote a freaking book in 2006 called “The Plan: Big Ideas for America” that said he wanted to create a National Civilian Security force and has since talked about wanting our youth to be included in involuntary servitude. Do you want Americans to be FORCED to serve? Thats not freedom, thats slavery.
Want to see clips?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0B7dOQwKm0
The GIVE Act is nothing but ceating another Hitler Youth
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRVMNS1VlLg
and you LIKE this guy?? WHY? What if it was John McCain in the White House and he selected someone for his administration who’s father was a terrorist? Youd be peachy with that?
MIKE S,
“A set of principles finally to be brought to life”
I like that. You sure you weren’t M.L.K.jr’s counselor? M.L.K. actually used the words of the Constitution to show the “rightness” of his cause. But that’s another topic.
I agree w/what most of what you said. I believe all those in the “aristocracy” are the elite progressives.
We are the people. We all need to come together to relize how we are played as pawns.
I love that quote of yours. You BETTER copyright it. That document (Constitution), no matter the beliefs or intentions of those who wrote it, can not be ignored. Only WE THE PEOPLE can let “THEM” get away w/it b/c WE were given so much that we don’t even avail ourselves of. To me, that is why M.L.K. was so successful. B/c no matter what these racsist and slave owners who wrote the Constitution practiced and how hard they worked to maintain it, the words they wrote would never allow for those practices to last.
We have all been interred as slaves to this govn’t BUT b/c of the Constitution it can only continue if WE let it.
For real, copyright that line. It was brilliant in it’s simplicity.
Thanks.
MESPO,
I hear what you’re saying.
Just for clarification, I didn’t mean you intended the stone at me nor did I intend a stone for you. I was wondering how you meant that in respects to the questions I asked. Thanks for clarifying. And thanks for not reading something into what I said.
Believe me, I’ve seen many a “ZIP” say something that meant one thing in one province that offended someone from another province. There would be sitdowns and all kinds of and apologizes and hand shaking.
Money problems could always be settled real easy but, especially w/Zips, insults and face-saving could lead to all kinds of trouble.
What I meant w/my proverb was that, when someone is wronged (Gitmo prisoners/ And that’s how they’ll feel no matter what) they will be consumed w/vengence till the end of their days. So whatever we do w/these Gitmo guys, right or wrong, we’re going to be left w/vendetta’s that will trancsend generations.
Pres. Obama’s hypocritical lecturing of Africa.
________________________________
{Quote:
“No person wants to live in a society where the rule of law gives way to the rule of brutality and bribery.”
End Quote}
_______________________________
Patty,
Thanks for the correction. Eat well this weekend.
—
Don’t think of it as a ‘correction’. That’s not how I meant it.
I always eat well. I’m the chef in my house, like yourself! It’s mespo, sans appliances during his culinary remodel who needed support this past week.
Here’s another Moroccan couscous, only with more spice and veggies. Skip the chicken recipe here, though. Although I haven’t tried it, it looks bland.
http://www.bonappetit.com/magazine/2008/08/grilled_lemon_chicken_and_moroccan_couscous_salad
“would like your larger perspective of where we are as a citizenry/ How did we let our Constitution be usurped? Do you feel that WE have let the govn’t legislate away many of our liberties? And if so please explicate. How do you feel the whole Gitmo issue will eventually play out? And most importantly, how do WE turn back the clock to re-take what the govn’t has stolen?”
sicilian 1,
It is a very long series of questions you ask, but I think that the answers to them are actually short, at least from my perspective. That is not because I intend to dismiss you, but because I think the truth is uncomplicated and in plain sight if we but let ourselves see it, without the filter of our own
pre-judgments.
“how do WE turn back the clock to re-take what the govn’t has stolen?”
The Constitution of the US is one of mankind’s seminal documents. It is nothing less than a blueprint for the establishment and maintenance of a free society, a society
that had never for existed in world history. However, even its
creators understood that for it to work, the populace must be able adhere to and interpret/re-interpret it, or fall into the usual trap of human history which is to revert to a society of “Great Apes,” where the most powerful rule.
Washington himself faced this quickly as our First President when there was a clamor for him to keep the job for life. Indeed there were those at the constitutional Convention that wanted him to be made King.
Also inherent in the Constitution were the seeds of its’ own destruction given the compromises due to slavery and its’ total lack of recognition of the rights of women. The solution then from the beginning was to take that document as a framework and to let it become a living one by re-interpretation as time went by. Some people believed in this solution, others did not and thus was born from the outset the same basic issues that we face today, dressed in the modern idiom, but still depressingly the same.
Mixed in with this was the separation between those who believe in a human aristocracy that is fit to rule (whatever
way one defines that elite characterization)and those who feel that the society should be governed by the will of the people, tempered with a recognition and protection of the rights of minorities. To me then there is no clock to be turned back because Constitutional Rule was never effectuated from the beginning. It’s not a clock to be turned back, it is a set of principles to finally be brought to life.
“I would like your larger perspective of where we are as a citizenry/ How did we let our Constitution be usurped? Do you feel that WE have let the govn’t legislate away many of our liberties?’
In my opinion we as a citizenry have never had the power and therefore nothing has been usurped, it was never there in the first place. Remember, most of our wealthiest Founding Fathers, some extremely good and capable men, were also among the wealthiest in the fledgling country. They ran the show from the start and people like Sam Adams, for instance were pushed aside because he wasn’t of their class. To me the history of this country has always been a battle of the elites, with one side clinging to its’ imagined “Aristocratic”
prerogatives and the other with empathy for the plight of all of the nations citizenry. Remember for years one couldn’t vote if they didn’t own property and women couldn’t vote until the early 20th Century.
“And if so please explicate. How do you feel the whole Gitmo issue will eventually play out? And most importantly, how do WE turn back the clock to re-take what the govn’t has stolen?”
The real problem we face isn’t “Gitmo” as bad as it is. The real problem is the ages old struggle between those who believe a society (and the world)is best run for the benefit of an “elite” (aristocracy?)who will then take care of the rest of us as they see fit. On the other side are those who believe in a more egalitarian way of running things that ensures that minimum humane standards of life should be available to all and that each human being should have the ability to maximize their potential. The socio/political and economic constructs are never the point or the solution of this struggle, they are merely the smokescreen that hides the essence. The essence is can a human being live their life w/o
being controlled by those who live their lives for ego, power and the joy of dominance? The age old struggle then, in my opinion, is whether we continue to live like a society of Great Apes, or whether we evolve into beings who can live together w/o the threats of those lusting for power.
Now I know your, to me, obsession with “progressives” but that is where I think you miss the point. It’s not the politics, it’s the bullies and they come at you from all sides of the political spectrum.
“In the Hall of Infamy 9-11 probably ranks above Pearl Harbor (2300 dead/1100 injured) but well below Antietam (23,000/4000) or or Gettysburg (51,000 casualties).”
Mespo,
Bob was quoting me on this. Knowing the possible inflammatory nature of the statement:
“This horrific incident, which incidentally does not compare in catastrophe to either Pearl Harbor, or the Civil War.”
My use of “catastrophe” was purposeful for this reason. Catastrophe connotes a horrific event of widespread import. While less lives were lost at Pearl Harbor, the destruction of our Pacific Fleet was a greater cataclysm for the fortunes of the US than 9/11. For a while it gave the attackers control of the Pacific at the outset of a war. 9/11 no doubt gave those terrorists some heavy publicity, but it gave them control of nothing, which is the usual outcome of horrific terrorist acts. I referred to the civil war in general since we know many of the individual battles produced deaths beyond 3,000. The Civil War itself though was catastrophic for the effect it had upon us a country and as a society and that effect far eclipsed 9/11.
Whenever we talk of lives lost it perforce ignores the tragic effects on those left behind by the deceased. Aggregating
numbers for intellectual purposes always diminishes the actual human costs involved. Recognizing this I was trying to carefully separate 9/11 the human and cultural tragedy, from 9/11 the national tragedy, but of necessity that is difficult.
My contention is that the human tragedy of 9/11 was manipulated by the Bush/Cheney Crime Family to elevate its’ effect beyond proportion and thus justify a pseudo-response that had the effect of unjustified war, expense and attacks on the very fabric that holds our country together.
“It has been a source of great pain to me to have met with so many among [my] opponents who had not the liberality to distinguish between political and social opposition; who transferred at once to the person, the hatred they bore to his political opinions.” –Thomas Jefferson
s1:
No stone intended. The literal translation around my house for that Italian saying was “When the chess game is over, the pawns, rooks, knights, bishops, kings, and queens all go back into the same box.” It meant to me that all wars end, and some connections transcend strongly held differences of opinion.