In yet another slap at civil liberties and civil libertarians, President Barack Obama signed an executive order Monday that will resume military tribunal proceedings at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Obama has ordered the resumption of these trials — denounced both domestically and internationally as trumped up proceedings designed to make convictions easier by omitting core constitutional and procedural protections. Indeed, these tribunals are being heralded as guaranteeing swift punishment — an implied recognition that we could not convict some of these individuals in a fair federal trial.
It is a cynical calculation by the Administration that civil libertarians have no where to go in the next election — a calculation that has been reaffirmed by many liberals who complain about Obama’s anti-civil liberties policies but still say that they have to support him. This support is continuing despite Obama’s blocking of any prosecution for torture or investigation of alleged war crimes.
The Republicans have complimented Obama on his decision and drawn the fair and obvious conclusion that he has once again reaffirmed Bush’s policies. Rep. Peter King, the Republican chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, observed “the bottom line is that it affirms the Bush administration policy that our government has the right to detain dangerous terrorists until the cessation of hostilities.”
The Obama Administration’s position is perfectly incomprehensible. As with Bush, Obama will now choose Caesar-like between those who will receive a fair trial in federal court and those who are sent to military tribunals. The decision will be made on the need for the tribunals to secure conviction under “special” rules that deny the defendant core protections and rights.
Source: The Washington Post
Jonathan Turley
Swarthmore,
To answer your question about other choices, I’m not even sure how there was a choice between “the tea party” in Wisconsin and President Obama in the first place. Being as one’s President and the other is a combination of legislators and the Governor of a state.
If we’re just talking about the 2012 Presidential race: I’m willing to bet there’ll be several minor party candidates running for President in 2012, and if one was so inclined, you could always support a movement to have a primary for the Democratic nomination, or call for President Obama not to run. Heck, you could even join the Republican party and vote in the primary for a non-tea party member.
Just because YOU don’t like any of those choices doesn’t mean that you don’t have the option available to you.
rafflaw
“Stamford,
Well said!”
——————————————————
Thank you, counselor 🙂
Gyges The same thing was said last fall and the tea party is running Wisconsin.
Swarthmore,
Let me set up a situation for you.
JT writes a post about how big corporations are getting away with violating EPA regulations.
Troll X responds with a post about how if we didn’t have big corporations, we wouldn’t have automobiles.
What would you guess Troll X’s intent was? I’d assume it was an attempt to justify big corporations breaking the law by setting up a false dichotomy: Either we have big corporations that pollute, or we have to walk.
Now, I’d like it if you could explain to me why Jill and myself are wrong for assuming that your comment implying that if we didn’t elect Obama we’d have the tea party running things, is any but an attempt to justify the Obama administration committing violations of basic human rights by presenting a similar false dichotomy?
rafflaw I agree with you.
Swarthmore,
I agree that Obama is still the best choice, but he still has to answer to the people who put him in office.
While the below subject matter may be OT, I think it goes to the heart of what I’m saying in terms of Obama bending to the politics instead of standing up for principle:
This is what happens when you pay the GOP’s ransom
By Robert Reich
It’s called ransom. That’s what Republicans are demanding from the White House and congressional Democrats for not pulling the plug on the government.
Problem is, when you pay ransom once, you’re almost begging to pay it again. And that’s exactly the pickle the Obama administration is finding itself in.
In order to avoid a shutdown last week and buy time until March 18, the White House agreed to more spending cuts for the remainder of this fiscal year than it originally put on the table. Now, in order to get past March 18, Republicans want even more. Democrats have offered to cut an additional $10.5 billion but Republicans want $61 billion. The White House is hinting it’s ready to compromise further.
Of course it is. Both sides want to look as if they’re willing to compromise because neither side wants to be blamed by the public if a shutdown happens.
That means they’ll have to agree to split the difference – which will result in around $35 billion of additional cuts. Not in Social Security or Medicare or national defense – no, those programs are too popular or politically potent for any short-term political deal. The $35 billion will come out of what’s called non-defense discretionary spending for the rest of this year.
Non-defense discretionary is 12 percent of the federal budget. It’s also where most federal education programs appear, as well as most programs for the poor apart from Medicaid. In effect, a third of non-defense discretionary spending is handed over to states and locales. Which means cities and states will be taking a huge hit. Detroit is already making plans to put 60 students in each of its high school classrooms.
This is ludicrous.
Yes, fix the budget deficit when we’re safely out of the gravitational pull of the Great Recession. Raise taxes on the super-rich, contain the explosion of health-care costs, cut the defense budget, end agricultural subsidies, stop corporate welfare.
But don’t hurt the most vulnerable members of our society.
And don’t cut anything now — not with unemployment still hovering around 9 percent, and 15 million people without jobs. Not just as the federal stimulus is coming to an end.
Not at a time when state and local governments are slashing their own budgets a total of more than $100 billion this year and next.
Where will demand come from? Consumers won’t be able to make up the shortfall. They’re still under a huge debt load. A quarter of homeowners are still under water.
And with fuel prices heading toward $4 a gallon consumers will have no choice but to pull in their horns.
Compromising over budget cuts this year isn’t just unfair in terms of who will be hurt the most. It also compromises the fragile recovery, and puts the entire economy at risk.
The White House should never have started paying ransom. Once ransom starts, there’s no end to it.
Robert Reich, a professor of public policy at the University of California at Berkeley, was secretary of labor during the Clinton administration. He is also a blogger and the author of “Aftershock: The Next Economy and America’s Future.” More: Robert Reich
http://www.salon.com/news/budget_showdown/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2011/03/08/government_shutdown_ransom_budget_discretionary_spending
Gyges, You say there are choices other than Obama and the tea party. Who are they? Pawlenty, Palin, Huckabee, and Paul are tea party members.
Stamford,
Well said!
rafflaw,
“he can transcend the politics if he wants to.”
Hammer, meet nail. It is abundantly obvious that he does not have the inclination. And that truly ticks me off about him.
—————————————
Swarthmore mom,
“SL I think politics play a role since a large number of americans think Obama is a muslim, himself, and the republicans are more than willing to exploit that.”
The Right has made it well know that they will exploit the falsehoods they themselves have created – Obama is damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t. Regardless of what he does, the Right will go postal. All the more reason why he should stand up for the Constitution, not against it.
I’d have infinitely more respect for him if he said, “Politics be damned, this is a constitutional matter”, but he hasn’t in two years and it’s highly unlikely that he will in the next two.
Jill, I have not heard anyone excusing it. One of my best friends is a SEIU attorney. She is adamant that we unify against the republicans not against Obama. She was rallying in Wisconsin over the weekend.
Some day excuses must be stopped. There must be a line which our people draw that does not allow us to accept certain behavior, no matter who is doing it.
This is the rule of fiat. This is not in our Constitution. Neither is what is being done to Bradley Manning. To accept this behavior is to accept the destruction of other human beings and one’s own govt. That is the truth. Whatever you believe is the cause of this action, no person who cares about others or our nation should support any person in office who would do such a thing. There is another way– demanding our govt. live by the rule of law. It will be difficult but it can be done.
SL I think politics play a role since a large number of americans think Obama is a muslim, himself, and the republicans are more than willing to exploit that.
Swarthmore,
Sorry, that just doesn’t fly any more. There’s a whole range of choice between “Obama” and “Tea Party.” False dichotomies are just as false when used to support Democrats.
Swarthmnore,
I am not suggesting that Obama wasn’t the best choice in 2008, or that he may be the best choice in 2012, I am just saying that he has abandoned the Constitution when it comes to the detainees.
Stamford,
There is some politics in this. However, he can transcend the politics if he wants to. He is able to take a stand and order the Article 3 courts do all of the trials. He may still do that, but I doubt that the detainees that were tortured will ever have a fair hearing. Unless the Supreme Court actually follows the law and states that indefinite incarceration is agaisnt everything America is about, it will never be over for those detainees.
Obama has been captured by the military but ask the people in Wisconsin if they are better off with the tea party republicans with their anti-union and anti-woman agenda.
Mike S,
I don’t know if I necessarily agree – I just find it hard to believe that, considering his background as a constitutional lawyer, and his past statements regarding indefinite detentions and military tribunals, he really does believe in this as policy.
I do believe it is purely political but based on the fear of what those on the other side of the aisle will throw at him. Remember how bad it got for him when he suggested bringing detainee’s here for civilian trials? I don’t know how much lower the Right can go as they got pretty damned low the last go-around.
I truly believe he is afraid of being seen as “weak on terrahists”, thus, keeping the military tribunals in place will be viewed as him being stronger. In my mind, it makes him look weak by lacking the courage of his convictions.
But, I could be wrong and you could be right … either way, the bottom line is that keeping the tribunal’s in place is shameful and further diminishes our system of justice which has worked quite well in the past.
Mike,
I knew Obama was not a far left liberal when he ran for President. He even told us what he would do in AFghanistan if elected. However, he ran very strongly on the issue that the Bush tribunals were not fair and that the Bush enhanced interrogation techniques were torture and therefore illegal. I believe that his change on the tribunals is all due to his change on going after the torturers. If he allows all of the trials to go to the Article 3 courts, the evidence of torture will be right smack in the middle of main street and on the news everywhere. How can he hide from the torture issue if he allows the courts to handle detainees that were tortured? He painted himself into a corner and now he is trying to wiggle out of it. Unfortunately, there is no wiggle room left. If he doesn’t try these detainees in Federal court, their trials will be a sham and the whole world is watching. Shame on him. Can you spell Kangaroo court?
The Obama administration has proven that it is just as willing and capable of trampling human rights as his predecessor.
So the question is, at what point does “lesser of the two evils” stop making you pragmatic and start making you complicate?
I’d say right about here, or possibly with the official sanctions of torturing a U.S. Private. If you really want to get into the minutia, I guess you could draw it at the breaking of international law by an public refusal to punish war criminals.